Jump to content

Talk:Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.86.131.77 (talk) at 19:53, 5 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DNA Analysis

Great work on the article. It definitely needs the space to bring out the details in an article of its own.

I think the DNA stuff needs sorting out (But I don't know enough to sort it out). The 'second strand' descendant is a descendant of John of Gaunt, and is entirely through the male line. If I have understood it correctly, it cannot therefore have been Mitochondrial DNA that was used. All three samples must have been from the same stuff, as they all matched. Hopefully something with a proper explanation will emerge in the next few days. RobinLeicester (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unnamed Lineage 2 match in this week's results is a mitochondrial DNA match. The male line descendants will feature in the YDNA testing which is still in its early stages. You can read more about the DNA testing here. HelenOnline (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the maternal line for Richard III and Michael Ibsen (through Joy Ibsen and Anne St Leger) both trace back to Lady Cecily Neville as a common maternal ancestor, then the relevance of mtDNA can be made. The use of the names Joy Ibsen and Anne St Leger is not necessary except as links in the chain, no more critical than any other of the mothers.

It should be made clear that the match for mtDNA is of the same order of magnitude as blood type match; a mismatch would deny the link but a match does not confirm a link. Malchemist (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same order of magnitude, a mtDNA match is much more precise than a blood type match (the chance of a random match is much lower). Furthermore, this was a rare mtDNA haplogroup match. To give you some idea I have quite a rare mtDNA haplogroup (Haplogroup V (mtDNA)) and not a single high resolution match (on HVR1 and HVR2 panels, which is not even the full mtDNA sequence) in a database of over 150,000 individuals tested at Family Tree DNA. HelenOnline (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Cecily Neville got her allegedly "rare" mitochondrial DNA from her mother Joan Beaufort, who got it from her mother Katherine Swynford. Now go and have a look at how many participants in the Battle of Bosworth were descendants of those two, and would have the same mitochondrial DNA.Eregli bob (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested the mtDNA sequence is unique and the mtDNA match is not the only evidence here, it confirms what all the other circumstantial evidence points at. Regardless this is not the place for disputing the findings of the investigation, only presenting the results without bias. HelenOnline (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reinterment: location, ceremony

How is such a thing decided? Is there any precedent, constitutional or otherwise?--Mongreilf (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reuters, the skeleton will be interred at Leicester Cathedral "in line with guidelines about burying bodies close to where they are exhumed". HelenOnline (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a text ref for it yet, but at the 4th Feb Press conference, somebody (I think the Leicester Cathedral Canon Chancellor) said that the terms of the exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice - issued before the bones could be lifted - specified re-burial in the nearest consecrated ground - which happens to be the Cathedral. What I don't know is whether that is a normal or unusual requirement.RobinLeicester (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DNA vs. Mitochondrial DNA

This article should strive always to differentiate between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. To a certain extent it does, but to a greater extent it doesn't. For instance, under the heading "DNA Evidence" (in the article's state as of Feb 5, 2013) every single occurrence of the text "DNA" is preceded by the word "mitochondrial". So this section of the article doesn't discuss DNA evidence at all, only mitochondrial DNA evidence. Why not edit the heading "DNA Evidence" to "Mitochondrial DNA Evidence" so that it is not at odds with the paragraphs it heads?

The difficulty, in the media in general, is that a reported "DNA test" could be either a real DNA test accurately reported or, alternatively, a mitochondrial DNA test negligently reported as a DNA test by a reporter who believes that their wardrobe and hairstyle are more important than critical distinctions. Such negligent references can also be the work of a malicious prosecuting attorney seeking to convict an innocent person of a crime that was in fact committed by some matrilineal descendant of the defendant's matrilineal ancestors.

The difficulty can be overcome if Wikipedia traces every reference to an alleged "DNA test" and ascertains whether the reference accurately recounts a real DNA test or negligently misidentifies a mitochondrial DNA test. If such test is found to be the latter, quoted text can be amended from "DNA test" to "[mitochondrial] DNA test". If such test is the former, the text is arguably correct as it stands but it would still be useful to amend it from "DNA test" to "[nuclear] DNA test" or "[non-mitochondrial] DNA test". This is because there are so many negligent references to mitochondrial DNA tests as "DNA tests" that, absent the inclusion of an adjective (which, in an ideal world without negligent writers, should be unnecessary) before the term, a reader has no way of knowing whether text referring to a "DNA test" is accurately relating a DNA test or is negligently relating a mitochondrial DNA test. The inclusion of the adjectives "nuclear" or "non-mitochondrial" would make it absolutely clear.

In the present instance, efforts were made seeking a person with the special characteristic of having only females in their line of descent from Richard III's mother. That is a strong indication that the testing used mitochondrial DNA, not DNA. If a mere DNA match had been sought, the pool of living subjects is dozens or even thousands of persons, including the Royal Family (descended from a different sister of Richard III). It may be that a 100% mitochondrial DNA match (barring a mutation unlikely to have occurred in these few hundred years) was better science than a DNA match diluted 50% in every generation, and that could be why the Canadian subject Ibsen needed to be found.

If it really is the case that mitochondrial DNA testing in the matter of this skeleton was supplemented with DNA testing, can someone please edit the article to reflect that in a way that enables readers to know, for sure, that such DNA testing did occur, and not be left wondering if the citations of DNA testing are really just negligent authors mis-reporting something that was actually mitochondrial DNA testing?69.86.131.77 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England&oldid=536745904"